Re: [sv-bc] Doubts on Streaming Operator

Then is a 'stream' some new kind of SV data type?  Why can't one declare
a variable to have such a data type?  And why no description of how
streams are converted into bit vectors that are suitable operands for
mathematical operators?

The error messaging rules are different for streams than for bit
vectors, so they are not the same thing.

If streams are to be treated as a full-fledged new data type then that
needs to be fully specified.  I don't see the ROI.

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:55 AM
To: Brad Pierce; sv-bc@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Doubts on Streaming Operator

But 8.17 has:

int j = { "A", "B", "C", "D" };
{ >> {j}} // generates stream "A" "B" "C" "D"
{ << byte {j}} // generates stream "D" "C" "B" "A" (little endian) { <<
16 {j}} // generates stream "C" "D" "A" "B"
{ << { 8'b0011_0101 }} // generates stream 'b1010_1100 (bit reverse) {
<< 4 { 6'b11_0101 }} // generates stream 'b0101_11 { >> 4 { 6'b11_0101
}} // generates stream 'b1101_01 (same) { << 2 { { << { 4'b1101 }} }} //
generates stream 'b1110

All those lines except the first ARE examples of usage outside an
assignment-like context.

Shalom


> But "int j = {>>{a,b,c}};" is an assignment-like context.  The
question
> is whether a streaming_concatenation can occur outside of such a 
> context.  There are no examples of such usage in the LRM, and I have 
> trouble reconciling the error messaging requirements of 8.17 with the 
> viewpoint that a streaming_concatenation has a self-determined type.
I
> contend that a streaming_concatenation is more closely analogous to an

> assignment_pattern than to a concatenation.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.